TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
How, in your mind, does someone knowing about a specific method of torture make it less effective? If I owe money to the mob, and I know that they will rip out my fingernails with pliers if they catch me, it's not going to make me more likely to get caught. It's certainly not going to make me think, "meh, I already know what to expect, so this will be a cakewalk." Torture is torture. Knowing about it in advance isn't going to make ripping someone's fingernails off with pliers any less painful. Knowing about waterboarding in advance isn't going to make it a comfortable experience.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
TLC, you just don't get it, being effective is worthless if we become worse than what we fight. Your argument demands that the rest of the world band together to bring us down as mad dog public enemy #1. If you can't see that, we really have to question your judgment.
Yeah, just ignore the fact that the only people who claim they are effective are the lying piece of shit Bushwhacko war criminals who stand be prosecuted for their crimes.
While you're at it, just ignore the fact that you have no credible evidence, whatsoever, to prove torture has produced any reliable intel or stopped any terrorist attack.
You have no "talking points." You have no conscience. You have no humanity. You have nothing but lies and more lies. :thumbsdown: :|
Your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals will be so proud of you. :roll:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Jessus jumping H on a pogo stick. Erm, we aren't ripping out fingernails. We aren't inserting bamboo shoots under them either. We aren't attaching jumper cables to testicles and pumping up the juice or anything resembling that.
The hyperbole on this subject is outrageous. You guys are trying to make it sound like we're placing the detainess in iron maidens and Igor is stretching them out on the rack. It's no wonder that none of you can have any sort of level-headed discussion about this when you blow the methods we used completely out of proportion and try to wrongly equate them with all sorts of atrocities.
When you overstate your case like that, you lose any credibility on the issue. You are trying to turn into a bunch of screaming twits yelling 'OMG, TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE.' I can only think that the reason people are doing that is to attempt to drown out anyone who wants to reasonably discuss the aspects of this because you guys know that, essentially, you don't have any reasonable counter argument.
I have NEVER been Apologetic for Terorists or their Actions. Go ahead, play that failed gam of the world is black and white. Alighn me with our enemies if I dont agree with your concept of "American Ideals" . The Bottom line is YOU are on the wrong side of History, Morality, and Human Decentcy and are willing to sacrifice fundamental beliefs and Laws this country has to abide by to be a "Beacon of light" to the outside world.
Torture is Torture.
You cant Play dictionary and Scumbag lawyer to "redefine" the word to justify it.
If we sacrifice our ideals and or principles to defeat the Terrorists that pose a threat to this country, They win. They beat us.
And it is YOU who will be their ultimatle ally. They depend on your FEAR,WEAKNESS, and COWARDNESS
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
That may be the only thing you've posted in your entire time on the forums that isn't an explicit lie. :laugh:
You know the old saw about what TastesLikeChicken. :shocked:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
BUAHAhahahahaha!!!! :laugh:
That's OK, Chicken. Sometimes, a jackass is good for a laugh. I'd rather people think I'm a jackass than a rattlesnake like you.
Rattlesnakes are always dangerous. :Q
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
without having to resort to hyperbole your argument attempts to diminish waterboarding as something less than torture.
Thats fine, that sounds like GWBs argument.
But it should be acknowledged even by you that alot of people have concerns that waterboarding is/was torture.
Given that the current AG office is considering "following the evidence where it takes us" wrt to torture quote Id say that your definition of torture (GWBs definition) is up for dabate.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Bush is following that rule that former Presidents should keep their mouths shut.
There was a good story about him settling into his new home in Texas etc etc.
And Bush was quoted as saying something along the lines of "the best thing I can do for Obama is keep my mouth shut"
Cheney is reacting the way he is because they (liberal Democrats) are trying to make him the scapegoat and the bad guy. So obviously Cheney is defending himself.
No different than when Clinton started defending himself post 9-11 when a lot of people tried to lay blame at his feet for failing to do a better job against AQ.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Hate to tell you PJ, but Dick Cheney is doing a fine job of assuming the role of villain #1 without an iota of democratic help. I can only say Thank God that this country has now basically learned that Dick Cheney and all his actions are morally bankrupt. Because Dick Cheney has told so many past lies and distortions regarding torture policies, anything he says now has zero credibility. As more facts come out, its almost certainly going to get much worse for Mr. Cheney.
As for your assertion that GWB will not lash back at Cheney and his cabal that wrecked his Presidency, that is and remains an only time will tell question.
Another set of people, namely Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, and quite a few others are trying to maintain a very low profile. Don't confuse it with integrity. It may not save them from being jailed when the facts come out, but the Cheney unrepentant position almost invites being jailed as he fits the poster child definition of an enabler for the torture policies.
As for your assertion that GWB will not lash back at Cheney and his cabal that wrecked his Presidency, that is and remains an only time will tell question.
Another set of people, namely Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, and quite a few others are trying to maintain a very low profile. Don't confuse it with integrity. It may not save them from being jailed when the facts come out, but the Cheney unrepentant position almost invites being jailed as he fits the poster child definition of an enabler for the torture policies.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
It seems the abuses at Abu Ghraib shown in those infamous pictures were actually approved interrogation techniques and the outrage from the Bush Administration was feigned. Also those soldiers who were prosecuted for them were just scapegoats. Man that's fucked up.:|
I hate Bush/Cheney and their policies and Iraq war. But I disagree with all the torture business going around. Yes torture is torture but it depends on who you torture. Even Geneva convention covers countries that signed, meaning that if one party didn't sign the convention and treats their enemies without regards, the other party does not necessary have to follow the convention.
Tell me how al qaeda follows Geneva convention when they flew the planes into WTC and killed 3000+ civilian and when they behead westerners they captured in front of camera.
Yes the Iraq war was BS, but it doesn't change the fact that American is fighting a non-conventional warfare with al qaeda and certain tactics, must be used to deal with this enemy. It is not fear, weakness and cowardness to fight back against an enemy that will do anything and everything against you. In fact, hiding behind Political Correctness and not doing everything to protect your country and your people is fear, weakness and cowardness.
You are full of shit and really despicable in what you will make excuses for because you side with these guys.
The CIA is hardly going to "pad the count" against their favor for any reason other than it was the truth. If anything, using your asinine counting methods, the numbers are probably closer to 500.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
After the end of his Presidency, GWB publically said something like the best I can do for the new President and the country is to remain silent and let him do his job. Very classy and Presidential move on GWB's part (extremely rare praise from me).
Anyone else notice Cheney gasping for breath at the end of just about every sentence in the Hannity interview on torture? He doesn't sound healthy at all to me. Maybe he anticipates his maker calling and wants to make his legacy as favorable as possible. Personally I agree with Hillary Clinton's assessment of Cheney's claims that valuable information has come out of torture- "I don't consider him the most credible of sources."
Cheney is taking an affirmative defense - simply trying to reduce his criminal culpability.
I think the torture house of cards is imploding around these clowns ...
First Defense: "We don't Torture."
Second Defense: "On occasion we use 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. We don't waterboard"
Third Defense: "We only waterboarded a few times to prevent imminent attacks."
Fourth Defense: "We only waterboarded the 'worst of the worst' (several hundred times)."
Fifth Defense: "Our Torture was effective."
The initial defense of the use of torture (widely used by Bush administration officials) was the "ticking bomb scenario."
Now the best they got are dubious claims of ***effectiveness***
Give 'em enough rope .....
I think the torture house of cards is imploding around these clowns ...
First Defense: "We don't Torture."
Second Defense: "On occasion we use 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. We don't waterboard"
Third Defense: "We only waterboarded a few times to prevent imminent attacks."
Fourth Defense: "We only waterboarded the 'worst of the worst' (several hundred times)."
Fifth Defense: "Our Torture was effective."
The initial defense of the use of torture (widely used by Bush administration officials) was the "ticking bomb scenario."
Now the best they got are dubious claims of ***effectiveness***
Give 'em enough rope .....
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Don't even bother Atomic, he either disregarded your point, or it went right over his head like an erant bucket of water over a detainee's head. It's silly to think that a terrorist bent on myrtardom for his cause, is goint to feel "comfort" because our torture methods are known. He won't answer the ends/means questions. If waterboarding isnt torture...You waterboard someone almost 200 times in a month time-period and do not get the information you want, do you bring in his family and waterboard them in the hope he will crack and get your desired results. After all it isnt torture, right?. where is the line drawn for interrogation, then? Which methods are acceptable and which aren't?. How are they defined. By government bureaucrats such as Rumsfeld & Cheney?
America, both sides of it, know well that what they did was torture. It was not only waterboarding, detainees have died from these techniques. The Justice Department tried to provide a legal cover which we also know does not hold water. It was just meant as a fig leaf to cover their asses. No one believes it has any merit, legal or otherwise. We all know America tortured. It is just that some do not want to admit it so they will go around and around muddying the water, saying waterboarding is not torture, when in fact it has always been regarded as torture by America and by the other civilized nations. These are the same type people who called Abu Ghraib a "frat house party" without taking into account how it damaged America in cost, credibility, goodwill and time in the Iraq war.
United States has a history of treating water boarding as torture and a war crime, for example, the prosecution of Yukio Asano after WWII. It was torture them, but its not now?
This is just another way he is arguing that both the norms do not exist and even if they did, are unsuccessful. Its is a metaphysical question. but he just dismisses all of them with his naked assertions. This shuts down conversation.
He believes that norms, and by extension, normative propositions are just matters of opinion and have no binding force. He is completely wrong. Norms inform the very law and legal process that he so fetishizes. The fact that a particular law might not exist in such a way around the relevant norm does not mean that the norm itself does not govern. It is also perfectly easy to derive a legal opinion from a reading of the law that undermines the very norm it is itself derived from.
Whether or not norms are "facts" is beside the point. They govern behavior in the absence of law and in its interstices. The law, in its slow, blunt, and lumbering way tries to keep up with norms. It often fails, as law itself is a living thing and its creation is a political process.
He brings this same tedious line of reasoning to every argument. He tries to reduce every consideration to the level of a legal opinion, devoid of context, devoid of the norms from which norms are derived, and devoid of the actual responsibility people have for propagating opinions and institutions. This is certainly consistent with his world view.
One can chase fine distinctions in the law and become quite lost in the details, especially when different statutes or precedents do not completely agree with each other or apply to the matter at hand. I presume this is the "common sense" factor. We are not talking about bureaucratic niceties, we are talking about taking a man's head and slamming it forcefully into a wall. Not giving due consideration to the act itself and how it intersects with our norms and our laws in other contexts is exactly what causes this sort of banal, bureaucratic denial.
Government officials don't have the legal authority to torture prisoners. They don't have the authority to slam prisoner's heads into walls, they don't have the authority to sting them with insects, they don't have the authority to leave them chained to walls in piles of their own filth for weeks, they don't have the authority to subject them to hypothermia, they don't have the authority to starve them, they don't have the authority to sodomize them.
It's not that terrorists don't deserve to be tortured. It's that government bureaucrats don't deserve the authority to torture. You want to give a government bureaucrat the authority to torture you whenever he feels like it?. You know what we call a government that has the unaccountable power to torture? Tyranny. Some might enjoy living under a government that can torture anyone it likes. The rest of us prefer freedom, thank you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter